1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The facts that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were legal spouses who completed the marriage report on June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff and their attached Form C delivered to the Defendant at the time of the above marriage, and on the grounds that the Defendant committed a divorce lawsuit on January 11, 2017 with the Seoul Family Court on the grounds that the Plaintiff committed a fraudulent act with the Plaintiff, etc., and filed a divorce lawsuit with the Seoul Family Court on January 11, 2017, the said court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant as compensation for damages, etc., are not disputed between the parties.

The plaintiff has a similar nature as a donation under which the plaintiff's failure to marry to the defendant as a condition to cancel the marriage, and thus, the plaintiff must return the property where the short-term failure has occurred. Since the marriage period between the plaintiff and the defendant is the short-term period, the plaintiff claims the return primarily and the return of the property is sought in preliminary cases.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that even if the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant are not broken down in the short term, it is not possible for the plaintiff to seek a return of the property by reason of the failure of the above marriage, and even if it is not, the value of the property cannot be trusted.

The case where a return of an objection can be filed even if the donation was made on the condition that the marriage was not established on the condition that the marriage was not established, is a short-term marriage in which the actual marital relationship was not deemed to have been maintained, or the case where either party is in violation of the principle of equity brought about by a strike state through marriage without the intention to continue the marriage from the beginning. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but even after the marriage was reported on June 13, 2014, until December 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff’s wrongful act was discovered by the Defendant around January 2017, and the above case does not fall under any of the above cases.